The Black Vault

CB, what ideas am I espousing that you define as "leftist"? That truths are better than lies?

It's also odd that you're suddenly agreeing with Hum that there's no justification for religion...

DIss0n80r wrote:CB, what ideas am I espousing that you define as "leftist"? That truths are better than lies?

Who are you to declare them as lies? You are bashing religion, and leftists bash religion. On rare occasions conservatives bash religion as well but they deserve a different label.

DIss0n80r wrote:It's also odd that you're suddenly agreeing with Hum that there's no justification for religion...

How so?

greeney2 wrote:People badmouth the results of science all the time, not science itself. Only a very few religions shun the use of modern science that I can think of, only Amish people come to mind. People badmouth the inventions of science everyday, that caused or created bigger problems, or at least the negative aspects of any given invention, affecting our society. We seem to have grouped almost every invention of man, or discovery of man, as a science ralated thing for this discussion. Nobody said to eliminate science, and nobody said to eliminate our modern things like Computers.

Shouldn't you be complaining about businesses that make the tech you have a problem with? Do scientists tell them what to manufacture?

It still doesn't matter, though, does it? Again I ask: What's the point in saying technology isn't always harmless? We all KNOW that. What do you propose be done about it?

CB, I was asking you if it's a "leftist" idea that truths are better than lies. Is it or not?

As for religion not requiring justification, I would say first that it's odd because pretty much all religious people I've ever known of do justify their religious beliefs as being morally superior to anything remotely equivalent. I don't know any christian or muslim, for example, who says "The other guy's religion is as good as mine". It's fundamental to their beliefs that THEY have the "right" religion, and that there will be consequences for those who don't believe as they do.

Since religions usually claim to be true, they cannot be immune to analysis and criticism of their truth claims. Especially since they are usually trying to do things like insert their beliefs into public schools. If they're going to do that, then their claims are fair game.

Now, it would be different if you held a private belief such as "unicorns are real" and wouldn't require any justification, as long as it was private.

CodeBlackv2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:What happens when science and religion conflict?

Each side should seek to resolve the conflict using their own devices if they care about it that much. Ultimately conflicts don't matter. They only matter if you are trying to blend the 2 together.

What are the devices of religion? Where is the evidence that religion is a useful tool of determining truth?

Your question implies that religion should justify itself to science. There is no such need.

Not to science, but you need to justify the need for religion. Why shouldn't you?

I just want to know why I'm a "leftist" for valuing objective truth... Does that mean there are "rightists" who don't value objective truth? I hope not!

That's what I mean by calling it a mindless political label. That guy doesn't even really know my political views.

DIss0n80r wrote:

at1with0 wrote:I personally feel that mathematical objects are discovered and not created.

Could you elaborate on your reasoning/intuition for that? Is it because of their elegant internal consistency? Is there an innate tautological truth to their existence/structure?

Here's a blog that pretty much gives my answer:
http://deadmonkeyarmy.blogspot.com/2012 ... s-are.html

One key point is to distinguish the objects studied in math and the human-created edifice called math.

Does Tegmark's multiverse also include fundamentally differing rules of mathematics? What makes a mathematical truth coherent and elegant to the human mind? Is it entirely subjective? Or could there be a blurring of object & subject somewhere in there? If the nature of reality is mathematical, why? Why might reality be innately understandable as a language?

I don't think reality is understandable but I do think it is describable.

Perhaps there is nothing that exists that isn't a "mathematical object" (e.g., a structure).

The human mind is a "microcosm" for math.

DIss0n80r wrote:Maybe we should live in caves, worship the sun, and throw rocks at our enemies.

Rocks kill less than nukes. Less efficiently, that is.

DIss0n80r wrote:We could all be slinging our feces at each other and squawking for all the objective universe cares.

*farts

*oops that wasn't a far* (Hershey's)

*SQWUAK SQUAKE SQUAWK

DIss0n80r wrote:Math may be the language of God...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

I'm one of those people that finds beauty even in a proof carried out on a machine. Makes me feel all special.